quote:

Just as a side note, notice how temperatures have likewise increased dramatically as C02 in the atmosphere increased. A correlation? Most definitely.

Your correlation falls apart during the mid 20th century when global temperatures fell drastically while CO2 levels continued to increase near the same rates as today. Not to mention that assuming correlations equal causes is terrible science.

Pity. It's a really pretty graph.

No.

I also have a graph compiled from Antarctic ice core samples showing the same thing. I don't have a copy of it readily available to show on YN, but I could get it up soon, if anyone wants to see it.

BTW, I think what reaction is saying is that your graph, while correct, is concerning the arctic (N. Hemisphere) whereas his theory is concerning Antarcica (S. Hemisphere).

You all might be interested in this article (especially reactionary05):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/125largenorthernlakesdisappear

So while Antartica is thickening, the same is sure not happening on the other pole.

I still don't see why you keep referring to this as a theory. Need I post another graph for you to look at? My "theory" is an observable fact. CO2 is given off by many things. CO2 is absorbed by many other things. Natural things. And then along comes the Industrial Revolution. And CO2 in the atmosphere increases, as shown in my graph. CO2 in the atmosphere was, prior to 1860, between 275 and 300 parts per million (ppm). However, after 1860, atmospheric CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase dramatically (see graph). Today, it's at 375 ppm and above. Explain that. Oh, too late, I already did. Humans. What else could cause such an increase in such a short amount of time?

Just as a side note, notice how temperatures have likewise increased dramatically as C02 in the atmosphere increased. A correlation? Most definitely.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Oh, I see. So it's not all right for me to leave out volcanoes in this little "theory" of mine, yet you completely disregard thousands of years worth of data just so it fits your argument? Heh.

The two instances in question are totally different, and you know. You left out a crucial part of your theory and on mine, didn't even fully read (or comprehend) it.

Oh, I see. So it's not all right for me to leave out volcanoes in this little "theory" of mine, yet you completely disregard thousands of years worth of data just so it fits your argument? Heh.

I have a graph for you. I think you'll like it.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Reactionary, you need to get your facts straight. According to ice core samples from Antarctica, the hottest period on Earth was roughly 300,000 years ago, not, as you say, the 10th-15th centuries. It makes me wonder about the validity of the rest of your data...

I don't know what you're talking about, I distinctly wrote that I was going on the temperature range of the last 15,000 years.

Reactionary, you need to get your facts straight. According to ice core samples from Antarctica, the hottest period on Earth was roughly 300,000 years ago, not, as you say, the 10th-15th centuries. It makes me wonder about the validity of the rest of your data...

Well, I don't know crap on this.

But, we all know that when the world magically explodes, our generation will be dead....very dead, already.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
CO2 is given off by respiration in plants and volcanic eruptions (among other things). Photosynthesis and the oceans take in that same CO2. It's a natural cycle. Can't you see that? I've tried explaining it in the simplest of ways. As I believe I've said before, pick up a copy of the September 2004 issue of National Geographic. It had a whole section on global warming and everything I said was in it.

Of course its a natural cycle. The earth's temperature has increased 0.3 to 0.6 degrees C in the last 156 years, well within the natural known temperature range from the last 15,000 years. The earth's hottest time was from the 10th - 15th Centuries, the time there were vineyards in England and the Vikings built settlements in Canada.
Even the former president of the National Academy of Sciences signed a letter "declaring that the costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence."

There is frankly no need for us to change our ways. If we cut our CO2 emissions in 2020 (which will happen, with better transportation technology), by 12 billion tons, we will be able to maintain our desired concentration of 550 parts per million. Delaying action until 2020 would "yield an insignificant temperature rise of .2 degrees C by 2100."

Northstar, while your facts are straight, your conclusion is not. And yes, I do apologize for my error. Anyways, the world's oceans have risen over 300 feet in the last 18000 years, far out pacing our current levels. The atmosphere is able to adapt to changing environments, just as it has for the past God knows how many years.

Global Warming Myths

quote:

Once again, since this is obvously a widely used theory (by the way you are touting it), could I get a link to it? That would get rid of any confusion.

Ahem. By the way, why do you keep calling this a theory? It isn't. It's an observable fact. CO2 is given off by respiration in plants and volcanic eruptions (among other things). Photosynthesis and the oceans take in that same CO2. It's a natural cycle. Can't you see that? I've tried explaining it in the simplest of ways. As I believe I've said before, pick up a copy of the September 2004 issue of National Geographic. It had a whole section on global warming and everything I said was in it.

quote:

For this theory to be correct though, the atmosphere would have to be constantly evolving, for the simple fact that (if evolutionary calendars are to be trusted), photosynthesis (plant's chief producer of carbon dioxide) evolved well after the formation of the atmospheric gases.

AHHHH learn about botany before I have a heart attack

First of all, photosynthesis produces OXYGEN, resparation produces C02.

Next, and bear with me, we must turn our attention to the archiatic period, or the pre-Cambrian. During this period, the only modes of burning and creating fuel were chemosytosis and photosynthesis. There was no food chain nor animals, and aquatic plants matted the ocean surface. During this time, we get the first beds of sandstone. You may ask the significance of this, but I shall tell you, foolish chillun. The red colouration of sandstone is due to the presents of iron oxide. The primeval seas were a soup of different chemicals, and it was loaded with heavy metals such as iron and copper. Once the plants began to produce oxygen into the water (a chemical nonexistant in early atmospheres) the iron rusted and fell to the bottom of the seas, forming massive layers. If the CO2 was being produced in larger quantities than free oxygen, then there would be no free oxygen to rust iron in the water, and the photosynthetic-respiratory cycle would be destroyed. So much for the Cambrian Explosian...

As for volcanoes, eruptions are followed by periods of global cooling. If I am correct (which I am) the eruption of the isle of Thera destroyed the minoan civilization, stopped the monsoons in africa, causing the Nile River to dry up, ending the Middle Kingdom, and created famines due to lessened growing seasons around the world.

quote:

There are huge discepencies in the amount it can tolerate, and the same goes for carbon dioxide.

I can decript Nemlinan scripts but I cannot understand what you are talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Now, common sense goes to show that if respirating plants and decomposing organic material creates ten times as much CO2 as humans, adding volcanoes would make it much more than ten times. Make sense? Or are two digit numbers too large for you?

Once again, since this is obvously a widely used theory (by the way you are touting it), could I get a link to it? That would get rid of any confusion.

quote:

Perhaps an analogy will work for you when you say that an infintesimal (large word, I know) amount of human-created CO2 cannot possibly tip the scales. Imagine a big glass of water, filled to the brim with water. In fact, this glass is so full of water that the level of water is actually above the brim of the cup, with only water tension holding it all in. Now add one drop of water to the cup. It overflows, spilling water everywhere. This is what the situation is like regarding CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, humans create a small amount compared to natural events, yet even that small amount is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

For this theory to be correct though, the atmosphere would have to be constantly evolving, for the simple fact that (if evolutionary calendars are to be trusted), photosynthesis (plant's chief producer of carbon dioxide) evolved well after the formation of the atmospheric gases. When the earth was a shapeless void in the first 1 to 2 billion years, no plants or life even existed, and all of the carbon dioxide (much less than) was already in the atmosphere. There was no "delicate balance" in the beginning (once again, going on evolutionary calendars) because there was no need for one. This balance must have evolved when the need (or, proliferation of carbon dioxide) arised. Now, based on this, we can make the judgement that the atmosphere will continue to evolve (just like every other creature (if scientists are to be believed)).

quote:

Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.

Once again, volcanic activity is not mentioned in the theory and that accounts for a good amount of carbon dioxide production. But as for oceans, water does not function in a "delicate balance" with dissolved gases. Look at the amount of dissolved oxygen in water. There are huge discepencies in the amount it can tolerate, and the same goes for carbon dioxide.

k9tb: I heard about that. My science teacher thought it was so cool and she went on and on about New Zealand's regulations, etc., etc. . .

clpo: Congratulations!

Pretty soon everyone will be blaming cows for global warming!
Someone will write up a 50 page report on why methane-producing cows are destroying the environment!
The poor cows...

I think I finally proved reactionary wrong. Excellent. He won't ever admit it though.